Social Security Will Be Paying Out More Than It Receives In Just Five Years

Dec 2013
33,448
19,262
Beware of watermelons
#1
When social security was first implemented in the 1930’s, America was a very different country. Especially in regards to demographics. The average life expectancy was roughly 18 years younger than it is now, and birth rates were a bit higher than they are now. By the 1950’s, the fertility rate was twice as high as it is in the 21st century.

In other words, for the first few decades, social security seemed very sustainable. Most people would only live long enough to benefit from it for a few years, and there was an abundance of young workers who could pay into the system. Those days are long gone. As birth rates plummet and people live longer, (which otherwise should be considered a positive development) social security’s future is looking more and more bleak.

No matter how you slice it, it doesn’t seem possible to keep social security funded. In fact, social security is going to start paying out more money than it receives in just a few short years. It may even be insolvent before the baby boomer generation dies off.

According to the Social Security Board of Trustees, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds will be depleted in 2034.

When this happens, only 77 percent of benefits will be payable. That estimate is no change from last year’s estimate.

In addition, the Disability Insurance trust fund will be depleted in 2028, which is an improvement from last year’s estimate of 2023. Once that fund is depleted, 93 percent of benefits will be paid.

Right now, Social Security continues to take in through revenue more than it pays it through benefits, which is expected to continue until 2022. Once Social Security begins to pay out more than it takes in, it will be forced to liquidate the assets held by the trust funds.

In 2016, Social Security generated $957 billion in income. It only paid out $922 billion including $911 billion in benefits to 61 million beneficiaries.

But the solutions that have been proposed for this problem don’t hold much promise. For instance, we know that simply raising taxes won’t work.

But increasing the payroll tax is not a good long-term solution to fixing Social Security. For example a higher payroll tax would have negative economic effects. In addition, it’s not even clear that raising the payroll tax would even generate enough revenue.

“Some claim that the solution to preserving Social Security is to raise more taxes, but history shows that doesn’t work,” said David Barnes who is the director of policy engagement for Generation Opportunity in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “In fact, since Social Security was created, payroll taxes have been raised more than 20 times. Twenty times! Yet, the program is still headed towards insolvency.”

This is one reason why so many Western countries, almost all of which are suffering from declining birth rates, have been so eager to open their borders to more immigrants. They’re trying to bring in as many young workers as they can.

But that’s not going to work either. Forget about the high crime rates, terrorist attacks, and social disintegration that Europe is facing now after bringing in millions of immigrants. Even if those problems didn’t exist, immigration isn’t the solution. The West has had wide open borders for decades, and it hasn’t made a dent in the liabilities faced by social security programs (perhaps these immigrants aren’t paying as many taxes as these governments had hoped).

We could let younger generations opt out of social security to stave off future obligations, but that wouldn’t help fund the current generation of retirees. Social security is already on the path to being underfunded for them, and letting young people opt out would obviously make things worst for current retirees.

There isn’t really any viable solution for paying off the future liabilities of social security, aside from cutting the benefits or increasing the retirement age. Otherwise it’s going to run out of money eventually, which is the same story with private and public pensions. We are all paying for our retirements in one form or another, but few of us living right now are going to fully benefit from it.
.




http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...-than-it-receives-in-just-five-years_07182017
 
Likes: 2 people
Nov 2012
10,582
8,740
nirvana
#2
There isn’t really any viable solution for paying off the future liabilities of social security, aside from cutting the benefits or increasing the retirement age.
Wrong.

Raising the annual contribution cap from $118,000 to $10 million, and means testing to prevent those earning more than $1 million, or have assets totaling more than $3 million, from collecting full benefits from the system will shore up the fund just fine.

And that's what's going to happen as the viable solution.

Increasing the retirement age has been a total failure in economic viability. It has kept unemployment among the young artificially higher, and has kept seniors working longer.

The retirement age should be lowered. At age 55 you should be eligible for 50% of what you have paid in, with 5% increments in eligibility each year after to the maximum 100% at age 65.

Medicare eligibility should also be lowered to age 55. If you do this, it allows millions of seniors to retire earlier, start businesses if they are so inclined, and it frees up millions of good paying jobs for younger workers, which has them paying into the system earlier, and overall increases GDP.

Economics isn't your strong suit is it pal?
 
Jul 2014
14,236
8,652
massachusetts
#3
People have known that for 50 years, it's planned.

It's the back end of the Reagan tax cuts, where the government gets paid back.
 
Dec 2013
33,448
19,262
Beware of watermelons
#4
Wrong.

Raising the annual contribution cap from $118,000 to $10 million, and means testing to prevent those earning more than $1 million, or have assets totaling more than $3 million, from collecting full benefits from the system will shore up the fund just fine.

And that's what's going to happen as the viable solution.

Increasing the retirement age has been a total failure in economic viability. It has kept unemployment among the young artificially higher, and has kept seniors working longer.

The retirement age should be lowered. At age 55 you should be eligible for 50% of what you have paid in, with 5% increments in eligibility each year after to the maximum 100% at age 65.

Medicare eligibility should also be lowered to age 55. If you do this, it allows millions of seniors to retire earlier, start businesses if they are so inclined, and it frees up millions of good paying jobs for younger workers, which has them paying into the system earlier, and overall increases GDP.

Economics isn't your strong suit is it pal?

That is theft. Plain and simple.

That just encourages people to transfer their equities off shore or into corperations.

Get everything out of your name by 50-55' claim bankruptcy and get on social security as soon as possible. Get as much of what you put in back as soon as you can.

You complain about businesses operating off shore and then turn around and want to punish people for being successful if they operate in the states.

You claim that I don't understand economics.

Very cute.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#5
People have known that for 50 years, it's planned.

It's the back end of the Reagan tax cuts, where the government gets paid back.
Show everyone where this plan is and explain the "back end" of Reagan's tax rate cuts being responsible...you know with Reagan's record tax revenues and all.
 
Jul 2014
14,236
8,652
massachusetts
#6
Show everyone where this plan is and explain the "back end" of Reagan's tax rate cuts being responsible...you know with Reagan's record tax revenues and all.
I don't expect you to understand, Reagan lowered tax rates and increased Social Security rates, counting the Social Security surplus to reduce the huge deficit his tax cuts created.
I don't think this, but in the long run, surpluses equal deficits.
So running a big social security surplus then, meant running a big social security deficit in the future, and this may come as a shock to you, but people were aware of the Baby Boomers in the 80's, and they knew that the Social Security would run a deficit, beginning right around the next couple of years.

I don't think it's in the Bible or the Constitution, so you probably are unaware of it, but we knew it back in the 80's.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,170
Barsoom
#7
I don't expect you to understand, Reagan lowered tax rates and increased Social Security rates, counting the Social Security surplus to reduce the huge deficit his tax cuts created.
I don't think this, but in the long run, surpluses equal deficits.
So running a big social security surplus then, meant running a big social security deficit in the future, and this may come as a shock to you, but people were aware of the Baby Boomers in the 80's, and they knew that the Social Security would run a deficit, beginning right around the next couple of years.

I don't think it's in the Bible or the Constitution, so you probably are unaware of it, but we knew it back in the 80's.
Show everyone where this plan is and explain the "back end" of Reagan's tax rate cuts being responsible...you know with Reagan's record tax revenues and all.
 

Similar Discussions